I put out a tweet two days ago criticizing an idiotic 2015 Mother Jones story — hold on, that’s a redundancy, I mean an unbelievably idiotic story even by the ever worsening standards of Mother Jones — that clearly sought to dismiss the story of Bill Clinton’s ties to pedophile Jeffrey Epstein as a right-wing hit job.
In 2015, of course, it seemed that Bill’s godawful wife, Hillary, would be the Democratic nominee and since Mother Jones is indistinguishable from MSNBC, it leapt to the defense of the apparent future First Husband. “Republicans Are Pushing a New Clinton Sex Scandal: Even if it’s not yet a Clinton sex scandal,” was the headline on the story, written by Tim Murphy.
Sure, Epstein was a pedophile and OK, maybe Bill knew him, but what’s a little pedophilia among friends? the magazine asked. OK, that’s a slight exaggeration, but the entire story attempted — and succeeded for some nitwit Clinton fans — in dismissing the case against Epstein as a political hit job designed to get the Clintons.
The entire story was around 650 words. Read it below so you can make your own judgement about my reply to Clinton defenders, who accused me of distorting the story to make Bill look bad. And while you’re reading it, ask yourself, “If Donald Trump had this sort of relationship with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, would Mother Jones have adapted a rather harsher tone towards Trump than it did towards Clinton?”
Also note that Epstein had been exposed as a pedophile at least seven years before Mother Jones ran the story and plenty of people, liberals and conservatives, had written far more critically about this disgusting man. Plenty of writers from both sides had also been highly critical of Clinton’s ties to Epstein.
Anyway, here you go. I’ve bolded a few lines in case any Clinton supporters have problems with reading comprehension.
Conservatives think they’ve found new ammunition for their campaign against the Clintons—a new Clinton sex scandal. Or sort of.
On Monday, Raffi Williams, deputy press secretary for the Republican Party, tweeted, “Woman Suing Jeffrey Epstein For Sexual Slavery Claimed Bill Clinton Must Have Known” and linked to a post that in turn referred to a Daily Mail story from 2011. The Drudge Report went for the more sensational “BUBBA AND THE PALM BEACH PEDOPHILE” and linked to the same story. Conservative viral news sites Twitchy and IJReview piled on, as did pundits at conservative websites, including Breitbart and the Blaze.
What has the right in a tizzy is a six-year-old lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein, a former Democratic donor who has been accused of luring underage girls to his island resort to give massages before ultimately sexually assaulting them. Epstein, a billionaire hedge fund manager, pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting an underage woman and served 13 months in prison. But unsealed court documents revealed that he had been the subject of a much larger federal probe into alleged prostitution and could have faced 10 years in prison or more, if the case had gone forward. After his guilty plea, two of his alleged victims, who had were underage at the time of their encounter with Epstein, sued him in federal court, claiming that he had a “sexual preference and obsession for underage girls” and that he had sexually assaulted them (and many others). Epstein has consistently denied criminal wrongdoing and downplayed his 2008 conviction, telling the New York Post that he is “not a sexual predator.”
Last week a new anonymous allegation was introduced in the case, with a court filing charging that Prince Andrew, Queen Elizabeth’s second son, had sexually abused an underage girl when he was a guest at Epstein’s house in the US Virgin Islands. (Prince Andrew has denied any wrongdoing.) And on Monday, The Smoking Gun resurfaced old court documents revealing that Epstein’s phone book included telephone numbers and email addresses for Bill Clinton. (“Now that Prince Andrew has found himself ensnared in the sleazy sex slave story of wealthy degenerate Jeffrey Epstein, Bill Clinton can’t be too far behind,” the site declared.
Clinton’s relationship with Epstein is old news. It’s long been publicly known that Clinton and other notable figures hobnobbed with Epstein. Still, the new headlines the case has generated have given GOPers a fresh opportunity to try to link Clinton to a sex scandal. Williams, the GOP spokesman, was attempting to draw attention to a three-year-old story that does not implicate Clinton in any lawbreaking. That article, which relies on court documents, recounts the story of Virginia Roberts, who alleged that she became Epstein’s sex slave at the age of 15 and that Clinton had once had dinner with Epstein and two girls whom she believed were underage (but she didn’t know their ages). But, according to the Daily Mail, Roberts said that “as far as she knows, the ex-President did not take the bait.” Roberts did say that she believed Clinton had to have been aware of Epstein’s alleged illegal activities, but provided no evidence to support her assumption.
Clinton and Epstein were indeed once close. The former president used Epstein’s private jet. And the presence of numerous teenage girls on the financier’s private island might have struck a visitor as unusual or even troublesome. But there certainly was a compelling reason for a politician not to ask too many questions: Epstein had given tens of millions of dollars to political and philanthropic causes. And there’s another ingredient to the case that makes it a less-than-natural fit for political point-scoring—one of Epstein’s lawyers during his criminal case was none other than Kenneth Starr, whose investigation in the Clinton White House produced the Lewinsky scandal.
With GOPers always eager for more soap opera material on the Clintons, don’t expect this story and its (so far) thin Clinton connection to go away quietly.
Yeah, it’s only the “right” that should be “in a tizzy” about this story. For god’s sake, we’re only talking about “sex slaves” and this is “old news” and a GOP “soap opera.” OK, sure, Bill’s relationship with a pedophile might be “troublesome,” but come on, “other notable figures hobnobbed with Epstein” and “there certainly was a compelling reason for a politician not to ask too many questions: Epstein had given tens of millions of dollars to political and philanthropic causes.”
Exactly. Epstein may have turned teenaged girls into sex slaves but he was a “philanthropist” — for example, he had given $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation — and why should Bill ask any questions at all about Epstein since the pedophile was a major Democratic donor? Hey, Hitler didn’t vet Nazi Party donors? Why hold Bill to a higher standard?
I’m not going to bother citing the idiotic replies from the few Clinton apologists to my tweet — which had been liked nearly 500 times and retweeted about 150 — but if you are a masochist, here’s the thread and you can find them.
By now we know that Clinton apologists can make excuses for anything Bill and Hillary have done during their vile political careers. Hillary Clinton stands by her man — a serial sex abuser and rapist by any reasonable definition — while posing as a feminist? No problem, Mother Jones editor Clara Jeffery can too.
Bill and Hillary team up during the former’s presidency and pass a crime bill that criminalizes and puts in prison a good chunk of the young African-American population? Hey, it happens to the best of us. The Clintons “welfare reform” further impoverished and punished the poor? Sure, the Clintons had some flaws but the GOP is worse and poor people are pretty lazy. Something really has to be done so I — yeah, you Clara Jeffery — can drink my $12 coffee in peace at my San Francisco coffeehouse and not be disgusted when I have to step over smelly homeless people on the way out.
Note: To read more about Mother Jones stellar work, especially its promotion of the fraudulent Russiagate narrative, click here to read my story about the magazine being on our 2017 “Hack List.” And note, that even though the entire Russiagate fraud has been exposed as bogus, and even though all it did was distract the country from Trump’s truly evil policies — on immigration, to take one particularly vile case — Mother Jones continues to promote the story to bring in money from its big Democratic donors and suckers/readers.